Is development by the lake inevitable or even doable?
What are they thinking? This land is not a place to develop and put people in
harms way. First of all it is a wildlife sanctuary, a flood plain, and no, trees
won't grow there. To put homes there also encroaches the noise and flight paths
of aircraft to the airport.If it were developable there is no doubt
that developers would have already had it developed. This land is also down
stream from the old Kennecott smog smoke tailings and the land is contaminated
with chemicals. Partly why it is so dead with no trees or wildlife animals.The voice of a city putting citizens in harms way again.
Garrott is right. This area won't support growing more than salt grass and
sagebrush. It's salty, sandy soil will turn to mush in an earthquake. The flies
and mosquitos will be terrible, and if you just spray them all dead, then you
kill the food supply for millions of birds that nest on these shores every
spring. Not to mention that it's easy to plan while the water is at
its lowest point in a century, and when it rises again -- and it will rise again
-- all of the uplands that would become the new nesting grounds will be filled
with development, people and pets. Bad idea, Salt Lake City. Bad
Salt Lake should focus on urban density rather then sprawl out into the wetlands
with more suburban sprawl. There is plenty of opportunity for growth within the
When the lake once again rises and floods these fools out, who is going to pay?
You don't build in a flood plain, especially one where you will be constantly
hit with wind driven salt spray and chemical crap from Magcorp or whatever it
keeps changing its name to.
The previous comments are obviously from people with an eastside bias who want
the westside to remain poverty stricken and undeveloped. This is wrong! The NW
quadrant is not there to suffer so that eastsiders can feel good about
themselves. When children on the eastside grow hungry and join gangs because of
a complete lack of adequate housing and economic development, then the
eastsiders will have a right to comment on this situation.
How expanding suburban sprawl going to help the current westside or help to
increase food production? Your comment makes no sense. Build up the current
Westside with improved housing options and services rather then just spread the
sprawl. As someone that grew up on the westside I would much rather see this
part of the city get its due then see the money head west of the airport.
I am for mixed-use, dense, non-sprawling development, especially when served by
light rail. However, I agree that we need to focus on greater density and
intensity of uses along existing corridors of rail and not on raw land. North
Temple is a valid point.If we really want to put our money where our
mouths are, we need to "densify" before we sprawl, not after we've run out of
places to sprawl to. Green sprawl is still sprawl.For heaven's
sake, I don't see how this is a east side/west side issue.
New Urbanism is the way of the future, if it's to be a sustainable future. Look
up Andres Duany on YouTube--there's an outdated (early 90s) but very worthwhile
lecture in nine parts on some core principles of good urban planning and smart
Developing in the Northwest Quadrant is a horrible idea. Growth is just not
sustainable. Most of the land is unusable, we can not sustain enough water to
carry that many more people, tax payers will pay for new schools and such and
more commuting will degrade the air quality. What should be the focus is using
what we currently have to work with and improve the area, making it "greener".
The most sustainable cities grow up, not out. Using money that would be used to
make new schools and roads in that area could be put towards renewable energy,
improving public transportation to improve the air we breathe. Developing west
would do harm to the environment and the people in the valley. We have a great
city with a great location but the air can't get better with expansion. It's
impossible. Lets focus on improving the cities carry capacity, air quality and
energy issues. We are too intelligent of creatures to continue creating
communities that can't sustain themselves. We could transform the city we have.
Yes we can build new sustainable communities but works unless we reuse what we
This is absolutely correct about the air quality. This is a horrible plan for
the environment AND for human health in the area!